Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 39 (PAT)

Kundan Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2020-01-10

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, SANJAY KAROL

body2020
JUDGMENT (Per: Honourable The Chief Justice) 1. The issue, which arises for consideration before us, is as to whether, at this point in time, the petitioners detention in connection with Nardiganj P.S. Case No. 193 of 2017 dated 27.11.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal or not. 2. It is a matter of record that F.I.R. was registered on 27.11.2017. 3. According to the writ petitioner, who is accused in the said case, he is a victim of local politics. He is a man of means having roots in the society and was never called by the police in connection with the said F.I.R. It is only when he filed nomination for election to the local Co-operative Society, the police, under the influence of local politicians, arrested him on 17.11.2019. 4. Well, in this petition we need not go into such controversy, for what is required to be adjudicated is as to whether the petitioners detention post 17.11.2019 is illegal or not. 5. It is a matter of record that after his arrest on 17.11.2019, the petitioner was produced before the concerned Magistrate. 6. In order to satisfy ourselves with regard to the petitioners detention, we summoned the entire judicial record, which we have perused. 7. On 17.11.2019, when the accused/writ petitioner was produced before the Magistrate, the following order was passed: 17-11-19 Fkkuk izHkkjh ukjnhxt }kjk vxzlkj.k izfrosnu fxj¶rkjh Kkikd ,oa v/kru dk.M nSfudh dh Nk;k izfr ds lkFk vfHk;qDr dqUnu dekj mez 40 o"kZ is- izlknh pkSgku lk0 lEgMh Fkkuk ukjnhxt] ftyk uoknk dk vkjksi dh /kkjk 364] 506] 134 Hkk-n-oh- ds vrZxr fxj¶rkj dj mfpr vfHkj{kkny ds }kjk U;k;ky; ea izLrqr djk;k x;k gSA vfHk;qDr dks iwNus ij vfHkj{kkny ds }kjk jkLrs esa fdlh izdkj dk nqO;Zgkj dk f'kdk;r ugh djrs agSa rFkk iwNus ij viuk vf/koDrk Lo;a j[kus dh ckr Lohdkjrsa gSA vr% vfHk;qDr dks fnukd 29-11-19 rd ds fy, vfHkj{kk vf/ki= ds lkFk U;kf;d fgjklr esa eMy dkjk uoknk fjekM fd;k tkrk gSA ¼ys[kkfir½ g0@ U;k0n0^^ 8. Even from bare reading thereof, it cannot be inferred that the concerned Magistrate had recorded his satisfaction, as is mandated in law. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. Even from bare reading thereof, it cannot be inferred that the concerned Magistrate had recorded his satisfaction, as is mandated in law. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , only with the endeavour of safeguarding the interest of the accused and ensuring that persons are not illegally detained, as is mandated under the constitution and the law of the land, issued the following directions: '11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction: 11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC ; 11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b) (ii); 11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; 11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention; 11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; 11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing; 11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. 11.8. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. 11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.'(Emphasis added) 10. What shocks us is the manner in which the Judicial Officers are passing routine orders, which is evident from the subsequent orders dated 29.11.2019, 11.12.2019, 23.12.2019 and 04.01.2020. In none of these orders, there is a whisper that the accused be detained or sent to jail, much less record any satisfaction. These orders read as under: ^ ^29-11-19 ih0vks0 Vªsfux ea x, gSA vfHk;qDr dqUnu dekj dks dkjk ls izLrqr fd;k x;k vfre izi= vizkIr gSA fn- 11-12-19 dks miLFkkiu ,oa vafre izi= dh izfr{kk esA ys[kkfir g0@& iz0U;k0n0 11-12-19 ih0vks0 vodk'k ij gSA dkjk oUnh vfHk;qDr dqUnu dqekj dks dkjk ls izLrqr fd;k x;k vafre izi= vizkIr gSA fn- 23-12-19 dks miLFkkiu ,oa vafre izi= dh izfr{kk esaA ys[kkfir gŒ@& izŒU;kŒnŒ 23-12-19 ihŒvksŒ dk LFkkukUrj.k gks x;k gSA dkjk oUnh vfHk;qDr dqUnu dqekj dks dkjk ls izLrqr fd;k x;kA vafre izi= vizkIr gSA fn- 4-1-20 dks miLFkkiu ,oa vafre izi= dh izfr{kk esaA ys[kkfir g0@& izŒU;kŒnŒ 4-1-20 ihŒvksŒ dk LFkkukUrj.k gks x;k gSA dkjk oUnh vfHk;qDr dqUnu dekj dks dkjk ls izLrqr fd;k x;kA vafre izi= vizkIr gSA fn- 17-1-20 dks miLFkkiu ,oa vfre izi= dh izfr{kk esaA ys[kkfir g0@& iz0 U;k0n0^^ 11. Such orders are being passed in routine manner, without any application of mind and assigning any reason. The Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) observed that recording of satisfaction was not an empty formality. 12. Judicial Officers are not mere post officers, they are mandatorily required to examine the record, whereafter record their satisfaction with regard to the need and requirement of the accused to be detained and kept in custody, which regretfully, as is evident was never done in the instant case. In a very casual and a perfunctory manner, the accused-writ petitioners case for remand was dealt with by the Judicial Officer (s) dealing with the file right from 17.11.2019, till 04.01.2020. 13. In a very casual and a perfunctory manner, the accused-writ petitioners case for remand was dealt with by the Judicial Officer (s) dealing with the file right from 17.11.2019, till 04.01.2020. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record, we have no doubt that at this point of time, the petitioners detention is absolutely illegal and as such the writ petition needs to be allowed. 14. As such we direct release of the petitioner Kundan Kumar forthwith, who is detained in custody, in connection with Nardiganj P.S. Case No. 193 of 2017 leaving it open to the authorities to take appropriate action, with regard to his detention, in accordance with law. 15. However, we clarify that our observations are confined only with respect to the instant F.I.R. i.e. Nardiganj P.S. Case No. 193 of 2017. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of. 17. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to forthwith communicate this order to the Director, Judicial Academy, Bihar, Patna for imparting training to the Judicial Officers as to how the officers must deal with the remand applications.